Welcome to HVAC-Talk.com, a non-DIY site and the ultimate Source for HVAC Information & Knowledge Sharing for the industry professional! Here you can join over 150,000 HVAC Professionals & enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to HVAC/R. You are currently viewing as a NON-REGISTERED guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register; for a free account. As a registered Guest you will be able to:

Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from nearly 3 million posts.

Charges of racism when used by the left are false 99% of the time. Even if Zim did call the guy a "f'n coon", that doesn't mean Zim is racist. In fact it was later shown that Zim was involved with a black family and black kids in his neighborhood. He was not a racist. But when you have a group of people (blacks) who commit crime at a rate 8 times that of whites, wouldn't you have a bit of an attitude towards blacks too? There are 370 whites in jail/100,000 whites, but there are 3096 blacks in jail/100,000 blacks. The simple comparison is 3096/370. If zim said "f'n coons" it is understandable why he did, and it doesn't mean he is racist. He just meant that most all the break-ins in his hood had probably been done by blacks and he had a bit of an attitude towards blacks. Why doesn't anybody in the white liberal media or black pastors or Rev. JJ/Big Al ever call blacks on their out-of-control crime rate? Why?

I think it's easy to see what happened here. It's not a mystery. Treyvon Martin, a wanna-be thug, went to the store to score some skittles and some pot. As he walks back to the hood he is smoked up and acting a little strange. That's what Zim told the dispatcher. Zim pulls up and questions him and Martin takes offense to it immediately. Martin just doesn't act on it at that point. Martin is just about to his house, and he turns around and sees Zim still watching him. Zim retreats back to his car. Martin checks out Zim one more time and doesn't see him, but Martin is fuming mad at Zim for watching him. In Martin's mind Zim is just another white racist that doesn't like blacks. And you can bet that Martin was up to his eyeballs in victim mentality. Martin makes his way towards Zim. The first punch may very well have been a sucker punch, but Zim isn't injured so bad that he can't fight back. There was an eyewitness that said, "These 2 guys are on the ground wrestling in my back yard". But maybe he can't fight back as well after being injured. Zim, fearing that he will be punched to death or seriously injured, draws his weapon and shoots Martin.

For all you libertarians out there, this is why smoking pot is dangerous. It causes you to lose a certain degree of objectivity about the situation you are in. Martin failed to calculate that Zimmerman might have a gun. Of course you could argue that even if Martin wasn't stoned, he still may have failed to consider the possibility that Zimmerman had a gun. Or, maybe Martin was so enraged that he didn't care that Zim might have a gun, and Martin figured he could easily overpower him. Prior to this point, all of Martin's thuggery, getting in trouble at school and doing petty theft was probably met without any resistance.

Also, since Martin was returning to the house with pot smoke smell on him, you have to wonder if he, his ole man, and his ole man's girlfriend were all getting high at the same time? But this is just speculation on my part.

To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must cultivate our personal life; and to cultivate our personal life, we must first set our hearts right.

Now you tell me, show me, here in this forum on your next great "factual" post where reasonable has trumped legal in a criminal case.

OK. Man has a concealed weapon. He walks up to another man he has a grudge with. He confronts him in a dark, isolated area and tells him to go away. Fight breaks out. He gets his butt kicked. He draws his concealed weapon and kills the man. He tries to use the “stand your ground” law to explain his actions. However his unreasonable actions preceding the event negate his ability to be protected under the “stand your ground” law. He now faces manslaughter or murder charges due to his unreasonable actions.

Another one: Speed limit is 45mph. Heavy fog reduces visibility to 50’. Can you be written up for going 45mph? Yes, because it is unreasonable and unsafe. There you go, unreasonable trumps the law.

I know it did me when I was a 19-year-old pot smoker in 1975. One time I got smoked up at a get-together at the local 16 lane bowling alley in my small town. I got so tired that I went to my car (1964 Olds F-85 with a front bench seat) and laid down in the front seat. The windows were open, and I wasn't passed out. I heard a couple of guys at the party (still to this day don't know who they were) say, "Hey lets roll his car out into the middle of the parking lot!" But, they didn't try to do it. Don't know for sure what was going in the rolling papers that Martin's friend bought, but there was THC found in his blood from the autopsy.

OK. Man has a concealed weapon. He walks up to another man he has a grudge with. He confronts him in a dark, isolated area and tells him to go away. Fight breaks out. He gets his butt kicked. He draws his concealed weapon and kills the man. He tries to use the “stand your ground” law to explain his actions. However his unreasonable actions preceding the event negate his ability to be protected under the “stand your ground” law. He now faces manslaughter or murder charges due to his unreasonable actions.

Another one: Speed limit is 45mph. Heavy fog reduces visibility to 50’. Can you be written up for going 45mph? Yes, because it is unreasonable and unsafe. There you go, unreasonable trumps the law.

In your first case the stand your ground law only protects you if you are innocent of provoking an attack. If you contributed to the fight by your actions the law says you can not defend yourself with deadly force. It is written in the law. Don't have to "trump" the law with reason because it is written in the law.

Second case is a no brainer. You will not be written up for going 45 mph in fog, rain, snow or ice but for another law. This is "driving to fast for conditions". You are not violating the 45 mph law but you are the driving to fast for conditions. Everyone knows that so why did you bring this up? More spin and trying to invent some new "facts" here I presume. Thank you, thank you very much

"I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."Barry Goldwater

.....................He was obviously using cop language (waistband) to allow him to draw his weapon or to get the cops to draw down on him.

Are you saying this is another "fact" or an opinion on your part. Funny I have never heard you ever use that word in all your posts. It is always this or that without IMO. You apparently don't have opinions because you know all the "facts". I use IMO or IMHO all the time because I never want to mislead anyone as to what the real "facts" are verses what I believe and that my friend is a fact. Thank you, thank you very much

"I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."Barry Goldwater

In your first case the stand your ground law only protects you if you are innocent of provoking an attack. If you contributed to the fight by your actions the law says you can not defend yourself with deadly force. It is written in the law. Don't have to "trump" the law with reason because it is written in the law.

Second case is a no brainer. You will not be written up for going 45 mph in fog, rain, snow or ice but for another law. This is "driving to fast for conditions". You are not violating the 45 mph law but you are the driving to fast for conditions. Everyone knows that so why did you bring this up? More spin and trying to invent some new "facts" here I presume. Thank you, thank you very much

So the “stand your ground” law states that you can defend yourself with deadly force unless you are acting unreasonably such that you started the fight.

A speed limit says you can go that speed unless you are acting unreasonably such that you cannot see in front of you.

Acting unreasonably causes one to not be protected under certain laws…and probably all laws.

Here’s another: Jeff Gordon get cited for exceeding the speed limit while rushing a life threatening accident victim to the hospital. He fights the ticket and wins because the judge felt he used prudence while exceeding the speed limit and acted reasonably to save a life. This did not actually happen, it is an example of how laws can be broken under reasonability.

Cops use reasonability all the time while accessing people’s action to determine whether they should be cited or arrested. In other words, reasonability supercedes law all the time.

Are you saying this is another "fact" or an opinion on your part. Funny I have never heard you ever use that word in all your posts. It is always this or that without IMO. You apparently don't have opinions because you know all the "facts". I use IMO or IMHO all the time because I never want to mislead anyone as to what the real "facts" are verses what I believe and that my friend is a fact. Thank you, thank you very much

OK. Man has a concealed weapon. He walks up to another man he has a grudge with. He confronts him in a dark, isolated area and tells him to go away. Fight breaks out. He gets his butt kicked. He draws his concealed weapon and kills the man. He tries to use the “stand your ground” law to explain his actions. However his unreasonable actions preceding the event negate his ability to be protected under the “stand your ground” law. He now faces manslaughter or murder charges due to his unreasonable actions.

Another one: Speed limit is 45mph. Heavy fog reduces visibility to 50’. Can you be written up for going 45mph? Yes, because it is unreasonable and unsafe. There you go, unreasonable trumps the law.

OMG, speeding over the limit, set by state law, when conditions are UNREASONABLE is the LAW.

That does not mean reason trumps THE LAW. Which becomes a judgement call by the arresting officer. whether it is foggy out or the roads are icy the LAW SAY you must slow down. the arresting officer has to make a judgement call at the time he sees you driving down the road. IF the arresting officer deems your where driving at an UNREASONABLE RATE, then he will issue you a SPEEDING TICKET, not a **UNREASONABLE driving ticket**

Grandfather laws: you COMPLETELY missed the point of my argument. The point is, a reasonable person should be able to possess a product whether the product was made yesterday or tomorrow if the product is exactly like the previous design, made on the exact same assembly line.